civilian versus citizen

BudE

Hillsborough, NC
Joined
Dec 16, 2016
Messages
2,228
Location
Hillsborough, NC
Rating - 100%
36   0   0
Let's get this straight. Anyone not in the military is a civilian whether you're a cop or FBI, etc. I believe this started years ago with either the NYPD or LAPD. What bothers me most is that it helps to build a wall between law enforcement and the rest of the populace. Every time you see civilian in regards to law enforcement it should be citizen. Unfortunately, some cops today consider themselves para-military and want to keep a wall between themselves and the citizens (all of whom are considered to be the enemy).
 
Let's get this straight. Anyone not in the military is a civilian whether you're a cop or FBI, etc. I believe this started years ago with either the NYPD or LAPD. What bothers me most is that it helps to build a wall between law enforcement and the rest of the populace. Every time you see civilian in regards to law enforcement it should be citizen. Unfortunately, some cops today consider themselves para-military and want to keep a wall between themselves and the citizens (all of whom are considered to be the enemy).

Just a WAB, "want to be".

A huge flightless bird that make a large amount of crap.
 
As someone who spent MANY years as a working street cop, I found it a good idea to maintain somewhat of an emotional distance from the people I encountered daily. That did not mean I was arrogant, demeaning, or intentionally rude. I had a job to do, and it did not always make me a popular person, and I did it to the best of my ability.

There is and always be a small portion of the population who will only respect/obey someone they fear. Equally sadly a smaller portion of young coppers don’t understand when to turn on or off the Do Not Mess with me attitude. Based on past experiences I’ve also found that neither group stays around long.

Believe me I have the highest respect for the hardworking men and women who’ve chosen a career to protect and try to help the rest of us, a job in todays world I’m not sure I would want to do.
 
As someone who spent MANY years as a working street cop, I found it a good idea to maintain somewhat of an emotional distance from the people I encountered daily. That did not mean I was arrogant, demeaning, or intentionally rude. I had a job to do, and it did not always make me a popular person, and I did it to the best of my ability.

There is and always be a small portion of the population who will only respect/obey someone they fear. Equally sadly a smaller portion of young coppers don’t understand when to turn on or off the Do Not Mess with me attitude. Based on past experiences I’ve also found that neither group stays around long.

Believe me I have the highest respect for the hardworking men and women who’ve chosen a career to protect and try to help the rest of us, a job in todays world I’m not sure I would want to do.
You're absolutely right in that there are many that will only respond to what they fear and those are the ones the police are tasked with confronting. Confronting is the operative word too. Their job is to find people doing wrong and call them to task for it.

It just seems to me that every time I hear the phrase "us and them", it's the public throwing it out.
 
It just seems to me that every time I hear the phrase "us and them", it's the public throwing it out.
Normally, I agree with you but I think you're wrong here. I think old bear was right in the X-ring. Cops are nothing more than an extension of the society they're in. These young cops, male and female, are... Never mind, I don't want to get in a pissing contest.
 
Let's get this straight. Anyone not in the military is a civilian whether you're a cop or FBI, etc. I believe this started years ago with either the NYPD or LAPD. What bothers me most is that it helps to build a wall between law enforcement and the rest of the populace. Every time you see civilian in regards to law enforcement it should be citizen. Unfortunately, some cops today consider themselves para-military and want to keep a wall between themselves and the citizens (all of whom are considered to be the enemy).

This may be a pet peeve, but as a veteran myself I often make the distinction between "civilian" and "non-civilian" with the perspective of who is working as an armed representative of the government and who is not.

As with nearly every other word in the English lexicon, there can be multiple meanings, which are differentiated by the context in which the word is used.

If one is speaking of the military and servicemembers, then "civilian" means "all who are not in the military". This includes law enforcement people who are not in the military.

If one is speaking of law enforcement officers, who are armed representatives of the government, then those who are NOT members of an armed government agency are likewise "civilians".

And no...I don't think of civilian law enforcement as "military". And they should not, either.

I don't get bent out of shape about the use of "civilian", so long as I understand the context in which it is used.
 
Should be easy enough to disprove then.

I'm not arrogant enough to pretend that I understand your perspective better than you do, not at all. I was simply observing that your choice of phrase rather implies that the "us vs. them" mindset exists on either side. I don't see what there is to disprove, I see only an understandable disparity in perspectives.
 
Let's get this straight. Anyone not in the military is a civilian whether you're a cop or FBI, etc. I believe this started years ago with either the NYPD or LAPD. What bothers me most is that it helps to build a wall between law enforcement and the rest of the populace. Every time you see civilian in regards to law enforcement it should be citizen. Unfortunately, some cops today consider themselves para-military and want to keep a wall between themselves and the citizens (all of whom are considered to be the enemy).


My wife has a Webster's unabridged dictionary from the early 1990s from her college days. In it, the term "civilian" unequivocally referred to someone who was not in the military, including civil police, fire, rescue, etc.. If you look at a current dictionary, it will include language that includes civil police (and other uniformed civil servants) in the exceptions to "civilian." It has changed in our lifetimes. It is not only a pet peeve of mine, but thinking of non-military police, fire, rescue, etc. as non-civilians is a dangerous step towards tyranny. One of the easiest examples to pull out of the militarization of the civil public services is Nazi Germany. Even their fire departments had armories and dress swords, bayonets, etc.

The civilian nature of CIVIL service is an important barrier to the tyrannical, military takeover of a society.
 
We are all citizens; military, law enforcement, the general public, etc. There is no distinction there.
Military and LE are both doing a specific job. One protects our country, one protects our locality.
For discussion purposes, what oath does the military take and what oath does our LE community take?
 
Last edited:
For the younger crowd, this "attitude" isn't new. I saw it coming back in 91 when I made the decision to exit my position as a state trooper after 20 years. The attitudes of my coworkers changed drastically from my first day to my last day. When I sat down and had the "hard" conversation with myself the answer was obvious, I either adopted this new attitude or I exited the crowd that embraced that attitude. To my dismay I chose to exit the environment.

My exit didn't do anything to change the attitude, and my superior officer (Commander) that I presented my resignation to fully agreed that things had changed and he hated to see my departure and even admitted that he was entertaining the same solution. 6 months after I left so did he, for the same reason.

Did our resignations change anything?? Absolutely not, except for ourselves personally....
 
My wife has a Webster's unabridged dictionary from the early 1990s from her college days. In it, the term "civilian" unequivocally referred to someone who was not in the military, including civil police, fire, rescue, etc.. If you look at a current dictionary, it will include language that includes civil police (and other uniformed civil servants) in the exceptions to "civilian." It has changed in our lifetimes. It is not only a pet peeve of mine, but thinking of non-military police, fire, rescue, etc. as non-civilians is a dangerous step towards tyranny. One of the easiest examples to pull out of the militarization of the civil public services is Nazi Germany. Even their fire departments had armories and dress swords, bayonets, etc.

The civilian nature of CIVIL service is an important barrier to the tyrannical, military takeover of a society.

Could not have stated this any better, and it’s why the continued militarization of the police should terrify anyone paying attention.
 
What is militarization of the police?
Using military type weapons?
Don't we fight for the same thing?
For using military type tactics?
Should they ignore proven methods of fighting well armed adversaries because it hurts someone's feelings?
For using military type gear?
Should they not have access to armor and the latest technology in searching for the bad guys?
Should they be less armed than the cartels who are not afraid to shoot anyone who gets in their way?
Someone needs to tell me what law enforcement does today that makes them militarized.
Be specific because I read this a lot and it's only buzz words to inflame readers, IMO.
No different than the MSM calling AR15 assault weapons or any semi auto weapon an assault weapon.
 
What is militarization of the police?
Using military type weapons?
Don't we fight for the same thing?
For using military type tactics?
Should they ignore proven methods of fighting well armed adversaries because it hurts someone's feelings?
For using military type gear?
Should they not have access to armor and the latest technology in searching for the bad guys?
Should they be less armed than the cartels who are not afraid to shoot anyone who gets in their way?
Someone needs to tell me what law enforcement does today that makes them militarized.
Be specific because I read this a lot and it's only buzz words to inflame readers, IMO.
No different than the MSM calling AR15 assault weapons or any semi auto weapon an assault weapon.

You're just trolling, right? You think the bad guys the police face are the same adversary the military does- and the same outcome?
 
Last edited:
In the end we are all citizens.

Citizenship implies some benefit, privileges and maybe some responsibilities that the non-citizens don't have. Let's see how this is in reality.

Citizens must pay taxes and obey ALL laws. Thus the respibsibility angle.

Non-citizens break a law on entry and then break more at a much higher rate than citizens. Non citizens also receive government benefits at higher rates. Some public colleges also give non-citizens more financial aid and scholarships than citizens.

SO, it appears to me there are no extra benefits to being a citizen, but all the responsibility.

Seems @noway2 nailed it. We are subjects. Citizenship has lost its value.
 
You're just trolling, right? You think the bad guys the police face are the same adversary the military does- and the same outcome?
I'm sorry, I must have missed the police use of RPGs, mortars, attack helicopters and hand grenades. Maybe I don't read enough local news.
I guess the use of automatic weapons when faced with multiple gang or cartel members is also overkill. Shotguns are also a no-no because they are just so loud. The police should stick with their .40s and cruiser shotguns to be PC. Yeah, sounds like a plan. Those militarized cops are just too much like our military. Bad cops, bad cops.
 
Citizenship implies some benefit, privileges and maybe some responsibilities that the non-citizens don't have. Let's see how this is in reality.

Citizens must pay taxes and obey ALL laws. Thus the respibsibility angle.

Non-citizens break a law on entry and then break more at a much higher rate than citizens. Non citizens also receive government benefits at higher rates. Some public colleges also give non-citizens more financial aid and scholarships than citizens.

SO, it appears to me there are no extra benefits to being a citizen, but all the responsibility.

Seems @noway2 nailed it. We are subjects. Citizenship has lost its value.


My response was a play on words. :rolleyes:
 
@larryh1108 ,

I really don't believe it's an issue of what the cops have, rather, "we can have this, but it's verboten for you, the citizens." That is what rubs people the wrong way and their concerns are 100% justified.

Whenever the state believes it wrong/illegal for the citizenry to be less armed than the state itself, it is 100%, pure Grade A tyranny.

I'll go a step further....

Those who framed the Constitution intended the militia...the 'people', to be armed equally as well as the military was. There is a clause in Amendment II that reads, "...being necessary to the security of a free state..." Now, some may disagree with me on this and that's fine, but personally, I believe when they penned "state", they were not referring to the individual states themselves, but to each individual citizen and their 'state' of being free men.
 
Last edited:
Yes, but the complaints of the police being militarized is all hyperbole, IMO. It's a simple catch phrase that has no true meaning. So far no one has given an example of what a militartized police force is. I just want to know what that term means because from what I see and hear, our police are no where near what a military unit is when it comes to weaponry and support. I guess those large, bullet proof SWAT type cruisers can be considered military-like but that's about all I can think of.
 
Local police departments in NC have received from the DOD:
  • Five MRAPs
  • One full-tracked armored personnel carrier
  • Seven “only complete combat/assault/tactical wheeled vehicles”
  • Seventeen helicopters
  • Twenty-two grenade launchers
Local PDs in SC have received:
  • Fourteen MRAPs
  • One M106 Mortar Carrier
  • Three “only complete combat/assault/tactical wheeled vehicles”
  • One full-tracked armored personnel carrier
  • One “troop carrier assembly with glass, armor”
  • Twelve helicopters
  • One hundred and ninety-one bayonets
The vast majority of things received via the 1033 program are innocuous. First aid kits, clothing,, office supplies, etc. But these things are weapons and implements of war that were purchased by my and your dollars that instead of “protecting” us abroad, are being used against fellow citizens, both those guilty and innocent.
 
What is militarization of the police?
Using military type weapons?
Don't we fight for the same thing?
For using military type tactics?
Should they ignore proven methods of fighting well armed adversaries because it hurts someone's feelings?
For using military type gear?
Should they not have access to armor and the latest technology in searching for the bad guys?
Should they be less armed than the cartels who are not afraid to shoot anyone who gets in their way?
Someone needs to tell me what law enforcement does today that makes them militarized.
Be specific because I read this a lot and it's only buzz words to inflame readers, IMO.
No different than the MSM calling AR15 assault weapons or any semi auto weapon an assault weapon.

The police have no moral or legal obligation to protect the public. They have no need for anything more than a 6 shot revolver. Now, change the law to hold police accountable for their actions and a requirement to protect the public, they maybe we could give them better equipment.
 
What is militarization of the police?
Using military type weapons?
Don't we fight for the same thing?
For using military type tactics?
Should they ignore proven methods of fighting well armed adversaries because it hurts someone's feelings?
For using military type gear?
Should they not have access to armor and the latest technology in searching for the bad guys?
Should they be less armed than the cartels who are not afraid to shoot anyone who gets in their way?
Someone needs to tell me what law enforcement does today that makes them militarized.
Be specific because I read this a lot and it's only buzz words to inflame readers, IMO.
No different than the MSM calling AR15 assault weapons or any semi auto weapon an assault weapon.

In a word, ATTITUDE............
 
Yes, but the complaints of the police being militarized is all hyperbole, IMO. It's a simple catch phrase that has no true meaning. So far no one has given an example of what a militartized police force is. I just want to know what that term means because from what I see and hear, our police are no where near what a military unit is when it comes to weaponry and support. I guess those large, bullet proof SWAT type cruisers can be considered military-like but that's about all I can think of.

I'll give you an example of militarization of the police. Just google the video of the guy killed in the hallway of that hotel room out west. Or an example of the swat raids on the wrong homes. Or look back on Boston after the marathon bombings. Or New Orleans after the hurricane. All examples of police using their might to kill or mistreat people. And with zero consequences. If you haven't seen this all along you either don't want to see it, or having been paying attention.
 
Wsfiredude summed it up pretty well.

There is an attitude of “we need this because we may face MS13, drug dealers, criminals, and terrorists. But you don’t.” Yet...we are required to live along side of MS13, drug dealers, criminals, and terrorists. The idea that we don’t need them because this necessarily heavily equipped police force will magically appear when the threat crops up is sadly rampant.

While it is absolutely true that the police have to respond to violent encounters and should be armed and equipped to handle the situations. It’s the thought that we, as mere “civilians” should not be equally prepared to defend ourselves while awaiting the cavalry that causes the rift.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
How much was it the police and how much was it the National Guard? (Which is a military unit). New Orleans was a tragedy and a travesty. Hindsight showed an over-reaction by the NG and police and bounds were overstepped. Future instances "should be" handled better. Of course, we can just allow the "citizens" to loot and riot, ala the LA riots, so we don't ruffle any feathers. Yeah, that worked well. Boston Marathon search? Home bred terrorism? I'd love to hear your plan of search and capture/destroy a terrorist on home soil. Yes, your plan since this was an example of misuse of power (or was it the right place and time for military type tactics?).
SWAT raids on wrong homes? Yes, it does happen. How many raids are carried out every day by every LE agency in the country? How many police departments are there in the country? Thousands? Thousand and thousands? Isn't your statement the same as saying all gun owners are reckless rednecks because we have a few crazies who make national attention with evil intent?

As for all the military hardware mentioned above, where is this stuff? I surely haven't seen it used in any civil police action. The heavy stuff. I guess it's there in case the subjects rise up to over throw the government. Why else would it be needed? Right?
 
For the younger crowd, this "attitude" isn't new. I saw it coming back in 91 when I made the decision to exit my position as a state trooper after 20 years. The attitudes of my coworkers changed drastically from my first day to my last day. When I sat down and had the "hard" conversation with myself the answer was obvious, I either adopted this new attitude or I exited the crowd that embraced that attitude. To my dismay I chose to exit the environment.

My exit didn't do anything to change the attitude, and my superior officer (Commander) that I presented my resignation to fully agreed that things had changed and he hated to see my departure and even admitted that he was entertaining the same solution. 6 months after I left so did he, for the same reason.

Did our resignations change anything?? Absolutely not, except for ourselves personally....


One of my best friends is a retired NYC cop. He said it started changing for them in the mid-80s. Part of it for them was going from community policing (your beat was in your neighborhood, most of the time) to assigning people to different parts of the city than where they lived. It took all personal connection to the people they served away and that was intentionally done under the auspices of discouraging corrupt policing (which he admits existed). There were other changes, too, all of them coming down, or being encouraged, from "on high."

He responded as you did - retired as soon as he could.
 
How much was it the police and how much was it the National Guard? (Which is a military unit). New Orleans was a tragedy and a travesty. Hindsight showed an over-reaction by the NG and police and bounds were overstepped. Future instances "should be" handled better. Of course, we can just allow the "citizens" to loot and riot, ala the LA riots, so we don't ruffle any feathers. Yeah, that worked well. Boston Marathon search? Home bred terrorism? I'd love to hear your plan of search and capture/destroy a terrorist on home soil. Yes, your plan since this was an example of misuse of power (or was it the right place and time for military type tactics?).
SWAT raids on wrong homes? Yes, it does happen. How many raids are carried out every day by every LE agency in the country? How many police departments are there in the country? Thousands? Thousand and thousands? Isn't your statement the same as saying all gun owners are reckless rednecks because we have a few crazies who make national attention with evil intent?

As for all the military hardware mentioned above, where is this stuff? I surely haven't seen it used in any civil police action. The heavy stuff. I guess it's there in case the subjects rise up to over throw the government. Why else would it be needed? Right?


This sure looks more like a military action to me than a civilian police action. Boston, MA - 2013.

watertown-gun-aimed-at-photogrphaer-923495_10200611106256641_1972215990_n.jpg
 
The whole “thin blue line” concept is “us versus them” from the very foundation of the phrase

What do you think, @Matt.Cross
Thin blue line is the line that Law enforcement draws between the honest world and the criminals that prey on them. It means what it means and not what you want it to.
 
Back
Top Bottom